Ahh, that slippery slope...

Id Software weighs in on the always online debate and (shock of all shocks!) they're all for it, too.

"Famed first-person shooter developer id Software would love to force gamers to connect to the internet while playing its games. It would be 'better for everybody', creative director Tim Willits told Eurogamer at QuakeCon last week."

And who will we have to thank for this wonderful revolution? Yeah, you guessed it...

"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected," he said. "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."

So enjoy being forced into playing your games online in the future. What a brave new world, indeed!

Yep, you're so right. Almost everyone is connected in the US. :roll:

Care to pull any more "facts" out of your backside, Daniel?

-wildflower-

Is that a dot map of the locations of internet providers or the actual area coverage as those maps are often misleading? Either way I see a map of the population distribution of the States in that picture. Not sure if you are arguing Daniel or trying to help his claim...

And don't forget, there's more countries in the world than the U.S. you know...

Yep brave new world, it's almost outrageous to ask for an internet connection nowadays when internet is already so common. Good luck being stressed over it with every game you'll want that'll sooner or later require a permanent internet connection, meanwhile most will just relax playing the games they enjoy.DanielDust

No internet connection is rock solid, saying "what if my internet connection drops" is the same as saying "what if there's a problem and electricity goes down", in both cases you are left without games, you can assume all day long with offline games just as you can with online only games. If we would assume the extreme, then all technology would go extinct because of an EMP, assumptions are cool and gets you thinking but that's an exaggerated way of thinking imo, assumptions are like fantasy stories, they're cool and interesting but they're wrong most of the time/never happen/you're not as annoyed as you assume.

The whole gaming world is going in this direction, there's no other way to put it, people either embrace it and entertain themselves or find another hobby.

I have mixed feelings about this actually, in the long run, it would be better for gaming as a whole, (of course not all games should be manditory online connection)

That is of course if a few things were addressed and fixed first.

A. the Highspeed internet Infastructure. (As of now, a good amount of people are finally getting decent speeds and decently stable connections, but this needs to be improved drastically still. There are plenty of areas where the wiring is so old and honestly needs to be replaced.)

B. ISP Data cap's removed or severely increased!

C. Internet to reduce in price, increase availability.

I know the future is moving to connectivity, and always being online, not just for gaming either! So how about we embrace this and rebuild/revamp/improve our infastructure to even support that possibility? (rhetorical question, not actually asking GS forum posters to do this)

Its to prevent hacking for the gold farming system that will be integrated in the game. And to prevent pirating. Stop whining.

Yep, you're so right. Almost everyone is connected in the US. :roll:

Care to pull any more "facts" out of your backside, Daniel?

-wildflower-

And the U.S. population density is nowhere near 100 percent. Not that I'm saying that there aren't people who don't have internet coverage, but I'd make a strong guess that your chart would deeply resemble a population map as well.

Its to prevent hacking for the gold farming system that will be integrated in the game. And to prevent pirating. Stop whining.

Darth_Revan_666

To prevent pirating? There will always be a way around something, no point in forcing an internet connection for anti-piracy, as the pirates will crack it anyways.

No internet connection is rock solid, saying "what if my internet connection drops" is the same as saying "what if there's a problem and electricity goes down", in both cases you are left without games, you can assume all day long with offline games just as you can with online only games. If we would assume the extreme, then all technology would go extinct because of an EMP, assumptions are cool and gets you thinking but that's an exaggerated way of thinking imo, assumptions are like fantasy stories, they're cool and interesting but they're wrong most of the time/never happen/you're not as annoyed as you assume.

The whole gaming world is going in this direction, there's no other way to put it, people either embrace it and entertain themselves or find another hobby.

Its to prevent hacking for the gold farming system that will be integrated in the game. And to prevent pirating. Stop whining.

Darth_Revan_666

Ironically, the pirated versions will be the ones that don't require an always-on connection.

Then the game companies will be the ones whining when people don't buy their games.

I would say one in 5 online games I play (mostly RTS) involve somebody's internet connection dropping. It's not a matter of having internet, it's a matter of many people's connections not being 100% stable. And if disconnecting = death, then that's a problem. Easy to understand, right?

in the long run, it would be better for gaming as a wholeLach0121

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]in the long run, it would be better for gaming as a wholeguynamedbilly

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]in the long run, it would be better for gaming as a wholeguynamedbilly

I think it's one of those things where he senses that it's going to happen no matter what, so he's trying to convince himself it's a good thing. Like people did with the patriot act in america.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]in the long run, it would be better for gaming as a wholebblundell

Yes this, among other things.

Help find in game issues quicker (in theory)

Stuff like that.

[QUOTE="bblundell"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I'm curious why you say that. It's obvious why the id guy would say it because that's probably what they want to do in the future; he likely doesn't think it would literally be better for everyone. Gaming is made up of two things, suppliers and consumers. What about always-on internet is better for consumers?Lach0121

Yes this, among other things.

Help find in game issues quicker (in theory)

Stuff like that.

Then how about the ability to choose to play in online mode?

Yep brave new world, it's almost outrageous to ask for an internet connection nowadays when internet is already so common. Good luck being stressed over it with every game you'll want that'll sooner or later require a permanent internet connection, meanwhile most will just relax playing the games they enjoy.DanielDust

So, you're okay with always-online DRM for every game now, eh?

Strange how your tune has changed in only a few month:

Again, I'll repeat myself since somehow you don't want to admit this fact, there is no outcry because you can play any of your games from Steam without being connected to the internet, without any problems except, of course multiplayer since you need internet for that unlike the Ubisoft DRM for which you need a constant internet connection to even play a singleplayer game, constant, not just an internet check even EA's past DRM proposal was better than this, the "check your game's licence on our server every time you play it or at least once every 10 days max" (check it, don't be constantly on the internet while you're gaming otherwise bye bye game, if you fail to do so in 10 days from your last check you'll be unable to play the game, yes it's outrageous but you know what, it's actually decent compared to this garbage) and apparently EA's managers can actually think since they let go of that thing.

It's really pointless to try and prove anything to us, you have no example that would be enough for an argument to show that this system is actually good, absolutely no example so you either don't care about what we say and you enjoy your game or you accept our opinion and the fact that except Ubisoft and this DRM nobody has done this before for singleplayer games and just don't care, but looking for arguments is not going to take you anywhere since you will always be wrong just your preference is the one that's right (for you at least).

DanielDust

I can find and post more if you'd like. It didn't take long to do a quick search of "Ubisoft DRM" before your posts vehemently decrying it popped up. Hypocrisy?

Bandwidth caps, unstable connections, and mobile internet aside, I don't want to depend on their servers for gaming either.

I'm looking at you Ubisoft, AC2 proved exactly why this is not beneficial for consumers.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

[QUOTE="bblundell"] Better ability to control hacking imo.xLittlekillx

Yes this, among other things.

Help find in game issues quicker (in theory)

Stuff like that.

Then how about the ability to choose to play in online mode?

That would be a good compromise I would think. I am not against it, though I am not a game dev or whatever. I don't know all the facts, but I can see how it would be better to have most connected when playing. That being said, I also think that if someone should absolutely want to play it offline, (some cases people don't have the choice to be online) they should have the ability to do so. In the long run of that scenerio, more people will adapt to it and accept it gradually, over time. I agree that it would be a better route than forcing everyone absolutely to stay connected at all times while playing, when people have more freedom/choice to do so.

Another way I was thinking about, (more fantasy than reality, but not super farfetched) Hubs, I mean there are vending machines, Hell even have the hubs at Gamespots/bestbuys etc.These hubs would allow you to put your USB sticks in to receive updates/patches/dlc whatever for.... Take it back home and boom Do it that way for people or areas where decent (or any at all) internet can not be had atm.

IDK just random thought in that last paragraph lol.

I don't really have a problem with it. Its just like Steam to me. And if you're travelling you probably want to get away from computers and games anyway for a while. biggest_loser

Steam has off-line mode.

I don't really have a problem with it. Its just like Steam to me. And if you're travelling you probably want to get away from computers and games anyway for a while. biggest_loser

Or maybe you want to game a while travelling. An 8 hour train ride is'nt exactly fun.

I think this is a better quote:

If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome.

Any sentence that starts with forcing people to do something and ends with "and then have that be acceptable" is unacceptable.

[QUOTE="bblundell"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I'm curious why you say that. It's obvious why the id guy would say it because that's probably what they want to do in the future; he likely doesn't think it would literally be better for everyone. Gaming is made up of two things, suppliers and consumers. What about always-on internet is better for consumers?Lach0121

Yes this, among other things.

Help find in game issues quicker (in theory)

Stuff like that.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

[QUOTE="bblundell"] Better ability to control hacking imo.guynamedbilly

Yes this, among other things.

Help find in game issues quicker (in theory)

Stuff like that.

You don't see a lvl 1 that spawns 378 ilevel boe items in his backpack, you would however see new characters with altered stats, altered items and high end items all gained in minutes then sold online (Diablo 2).

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]

Yes this, among other things.

Help find in game issues quicker (in theory)

Stuff like that.

DanielDust

You don't see a lvl 1 that spawns 378 ilevel boe items in his backpack, you would however see new characters with altered stats, altered items and high end items all gained in minutes then sold online (Diablo 2).

It's to make sure no one hacks or dupes, which would be disastrous considering their real money AH; that's the thing you should be protesting.shakmaster13

What's stopping them from implementing offline characters than can't be brought online?

Online characters are kept serverside anyway.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] Finding bugs quicker could be a legitimate benefit. As for the hacking, presumably the hackers are already online, right? I don't see how being more online would make them less likely to hack.guynamedbilly

You don't see a lvl 1 that spawns 378 ilevel boe items in his backpack, you would however see new characters with altered stats, altered items and high end items all gained in minutes then sold online (Diablo 2).

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="DanielDust"] Think of WoW, there, you have your answer.

You don't see a lvl 1 that spawns 378 ilevel boe items in his backpack, you would however see new characters with altered stats, altered items and high end items all gained in minutes then sold online (Diablo 2).

DanielDust

So, you're okay with always-online DRM for every game now, eh?

Strange how your tune has changed in only a few month:

I can find and post more if you'd like. It didn't take long to do a quick search of "Ubisoft DRM" before your posts vehemently decrying it popped up. Hypocrisy?

-wildflower-

Yep brave new world, it's almost outrageous to ask for an internet connection nowadays when internet is already so common. Good luck being stressed over it with every game you'll want that'll sooner or later require a permanent internet connection, meanwhile most will just relax playing the games they enjoy.

---

If it were a rock solid system, nobody would complain but anyone that can use even a fraction of their brain knows that in real life this is impossible if things can go wrong, they will go wrong, nothing lasts, nothing is constant. Using the internet to play multiplayer games is right, using 100% constant internet connection to a server that will never provide an 100% connection when you're playing absolutely any type of game except multiplayer is terribly wrong. DanielDust

Hahaha. Incredible how convincing Blizzard can be.

So funny story, I am the guy who always says "Hey who cares, we all have internet anyway"

Well, my internet is down (thanks AT&T for replacing my bad modem with another bad modem), and I connected my android phone to my computer through USB and I am using PDAnet to connect to the internet on my computer.

Ping in games isn't that great, but I also have sprint for my cell phone, which isn't fantastic.

You guys really need to suck it up. If you live out in the woods, go hunting or whatever you guys do when your stallite internet goes down.

For a board full of people that love technology, you sure hate it.

So funny story, I am the guy who always says "Hey who cares, we all have internet anyway"

Well, my internet is down (thanks AT&T for replacing my bad modem with another bad modem), and I connected my android phone to my computer through USB and I am using PDAnet to connect to the internet on my computer.

Ping in games isn't that great, but I also have sprint for my cell phone, which isn't fantastic.

You guys really need to suck it up. If you live out in the woods, go hunting or whatever you guys do when your stallite internet goes down.

For a board full of people that love technology, you sure hate it.

GummiRaccoon

Not to mention how is this complaint any more different than games being released that demand extremely high requirements to run properly? If we were to use that as the standard instead of internet, it will narrow down even more people.. Most people do not have a extremely powerful gaming machine.. Where is the out rage to that?

'better for everybody', creative director Tim Willits told Eurogamer

-wildflower-

how? name one reason how this can be significantly better for the consumer

this is bullcrap; I can understand Diablo 3 doing it because, after all, it is a multiplayer-centric game, but a singleplayer shooter like RAGE or Assassin's Creed? Fracking bullcrap, man.

I have internet, but I'd rather not have to log in if I dont have to, and there is no reason I should have to.

I'm fine with games requiring online activation, but I don't like having to be connected to the internet at all times. I just won't buy their games.

So funny story, I am the guy who always says "Hey who cares, we all have internet anyway"

Well, my internet is down (thanks AT&T for replacing my bad modem with another bad modem), and I connected my android phone to my computer through USB and I am using PDAnet to connect to the internet on my computer.

Ping in games isn't that great, but I also have sprint for my cell phone, which isn't fantastic.

You guys really need to suck it up. If you live out in the woods, go hunting or whatever you guys do when your stallite internet goes down.

For a board full of people that love technology, you sure hate it.

GummiRaccoon

I understand your point of view and even agree with it, but did you ever ask "why?" before posting?

The relationship between producer and consumer needs to be two-way, it needs to be mutually beneficial. An act like this is only beneficial to the producer.

Despite this beautiful modern world we live in, internet is not a right as of yet. Internet is not stable, whether from a tech standpoint or from a stupid ISP standpoint.

I can see in, idunno maybe a decade or two, when every single househould is "wired in" and internet is pretty much common that something like this would be acceptable, but as of right now theyre jumping the gun.